fox news channel, fair and balanced. >> chris: i'm chris wallace and this is "fox news sunday." a federal judge strikes down a california ban on same-sex marriage. what happens next? we will look ahead to the legal bat that will could reach the supreme court with ted olson a conservative legal giant who argued the winning side of the case. plus, 2012 and the republicans. we continue our summer series with possible presidential contenders when we talk with indiana governor mitch daniel. also, more weak job numbers point to a saled recovery. we -- to a saled recovery. we will ask what it means for the economy and the election. our power player of the week makes a high stakes bet on a part of washington in need. all right now on "fox news sunday." >> chris: hello again from fox news in washington. the national debate over same-sex marriage took another turn this week when a federal judge ruled a voter approved

ban in california is unconstitutional. ted olson argued and won the case which surprised a lot of people because he is a leading conservative lawyer who was solicitor general under george w. bush. he joins us from wisconsin. mr. olson, let's start with the issue of judicial activism. 7 million californians voted for proposition 8. 7 million people voted to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. now, a single judge overrules all of them? >> well, that is why we have judges. that is why we have an independent judiciary. we do not put the bill of rights to a vote. 41 states once prohibited interracial marriages, so that in virginia when the supreme court finally struck that prohibition down the president's parents could not have been married.

our fundamental rights, part of our constitution is a separation of power and an independent judiciary. we asked judges to make sure when we vote for something we are not depriving minorities of their constitutional rights and that is what the judge did. >> chris: you have condemned such activism in the past. let's take a look at 2007. judges have taken some of the decisions off the policy table taking them away from the people by constitutionalizing these issues. isn't that exactly what judge walker did in this case? >> no, as a matter of fact, since 1888 the united states supreme court has 14 times decided and articulated that the right to marriage is a fundamental right. we are not talking about a new right here. we are talking about whether a fundamental right, something that the supreme court has characterized as the most fundamental relationship we have in this country can be

deprived of certain individuals because of the color of their skin or because of their sexual orientation. we do not permit discrimination in equality, that is why we have a 14th amendment that guarantees equal rights to all citizen. it is not judicial activism when the judges do what the constitution requires them to do and they follow the precedent of previous decisions of the supreme court. >> chris: but mr. olson, you have also said this -- judges should "interpret the law not make it up, not create new rights that weren't there in the constitution." where is the right to -- you talk about the right to marriage, where is the right to same-sex marriage in the constitution? >> with where is the right to interracial marriage in the constitution, chris? the suprem supreme court said t marriage the right to marry a person of your choice is the right of liberty, association

and spirituality guaranteed to each individual under the constitution. when you are saying same-sex marriage, you are saying a particular type of marriage. the supreme court has looked at marriage and said that the right to marry is a fundamental right for all citizens. call it interaction marriage and then you could prohibit it. the supreme court said no. the judge after hearing three weeks of testimony and a full day of closing arguments and listening to experts from all over the world concluded that the denial of the right to marry to these individuals in california hurt them and did not advance the cause of opposite sex marriage. this is what judges are expected to do. it is not judicial activism. it is judicial responsibility in its classic sense. >> chris: so see sighty doesn't get to say that marriage should be between a man and a woman even though society has said that for thousands of years. 7 million people in california

don't get to say that marriage is between a man and a woman even though just november of 2008, 7 million californians voted they wanted to change their own state constitution to say just that? >> in the 1960s, an equivalent number of californians voted to change the constitution to say that you could discriminate on the basis of race in the sale of your home. the united states supreme court struck that down. if 7 million california yans were to decide we should have separate but equal schools or send some of the citizens to separate drinking fountains or have them be in the back of the bus that would be unconstitutional. if we didn't have a separation of powers, if we didn't have a bill of rights then 7 million californians could take away your rights or my rights or the rights of these citizens in california. but we do have a bill of rights and it is intended to protect us. the 14th amendment was the

result that -- the 14th amendment that guarantees due process and equal protection to all citizens, to all persons was the result of a civil war intended to enforce the promise of our constitution that all men and women are created equal. the judge is simply fulfilling that american promise. the leading expert on the other side said when we stop this discrimination america would be more true to its ideals. that is exactly what happened here. >> chris: when new supreme court justice elena kagan was up for solicitor general last year she said this, mr. olson. there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. was now justice kagan wrong at that time? >> well, what she was expressing is that the issue had never come before the supreme court. the supreme court had never decided that question. and she was correct that the supreme court has not addressed

that question. the supreme court will address that question at some day in the future, probably in this case she will have an opportunity -- >> chris: you told meo said yoe against judicial activism. what is that and what isn't? >> most people use that to explain decisions that they don't like. >> chris: exactly. >> what the court has done here. >> i'm sorry if i interrupted you. >> chris: i said exactly, that is how most people do define it. >> what the court decided here, the supreme court as i said of the united states has 14 times decided that the fundamental right to marry is an important constitutional right. the judge applied that right, that existing right, that fully determined and repeatedly determined constitutional right to some tens of thousands of citizens in who were being harmed by discrimination.

ha is not judicial activism. that is judicial responsibility. >> chris: here is where some people see a comparison to the battle over abortion. the political process in the case of same-sex marriage was working. five states and washington, d.c. have legalized same-sex marriage. now, instead of letting this be decided on a state by state basis you are in effect pushing the courts to preempt the argument which is exactly what they did in roe versus wade. >> would you like the right to free speech. in would you like fox's right to free press put up to vote and say if five states have approved it let's wait until the other 45 state dos. thstates do. the bill of rights guarantees fox news and you chrisual louisiana the right to speak it is in the constitution. and the supreme court peteedly held that the denial of our citizens of the equal rights to equal access to justice under

the law is a violation of our fundamental rights. yes, it is encouraging that many states are moving towards equality on the basis of sexual orientation and i'm pleased about that because it is extraordinarily damaging to our citizens, our family members, our brothers, our sisters, our coworkers and our neighbors when it they are labeled second-class citizens when the state of california as it did in this case enshrined in its constitution a separate status for certain of its citizens, it did immeasurable harm. we can't wait for the voters to decide that that immeasurable harm that is unconstitutional must finally be elimb nateed. i think this case is helping open people's eyes to the damage done by discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. look into the eyes of these individuals and decide why are

we benying them the right to happiness that we afford to all of our other citizens. >> chris: we are beginning to run out of time so i want to get to a few issues with you. look at the process going forward. why not allow the judge's ruling to stay on hold until the matter is settled. why push as you are to activate the ruling it will cause a flood of same-sex marriages that when they may soon be ruled or may later be ruled unconstitutional or rather that the ruling may be reversed? >> well, the judge decided overwhelmingly that all of the evidence supported ending this discrimination now. the judge decided that this discrimination hurts individuals every single day, every single moment of their life. and it is time for this discrimination -- >> chris: he did put his ruling on hold. you are pressing for that hold to be ended, the stay to be ended so that people can get same-sex marriages tomorrow?

>> chris, he put his decision on hold until he could hear from us as to why it shouldn't be put on hold. yesterday, the attorney general of california and the governor of california both said that the decision to go into effect immediately. in other words, that the chief executive officer and the chief legal officer of the state of california said it is time to end this discrimination, california will not be hurt if we stop discriminating now. we agree with that. we believe that the individuals that we represent and tens of thousands of other californians should not any longer be denied their constitutional rights and we hope the judge decides to allow his decision to go forward. >> chris: all sides expect this case to go to the supreme court and i guess all sides expect justice anthony kennedy to be the swing vote. let's take a look at his record over the years on this issue. in 2003, justice kennedy wrote the opinion invalidating a

texas law that made gay sex a crime. in 2007 he struck down a colorado provision that prohibited antidiscrimination ordinances that would protect gays. what do you make of justice kennedy's record on these issues? >> justice kennedy like the other 8 justices on the supreme court are going to look at this issue and most importantly they are going to look at overwhelming record produced by this trial. this judge, this district judge, the trial judge in california, the federal judge in california, listened to all of the evidence. we put on nine expert witnesses. 7 lay witnesses. and the other sidereally produced no evidence at all. in fact, they said during the course of the trial they didn't need to prove anything, they didn't have any evidence, they didn't need any evidence. this is an overwhelming record that supports the fact that individuals are being hurt and it helps no one in california and california has no rationale basis for continuing this

discrimination. when that gets to the supreme court, i think that will be persuasive to all of the justices on the supreme court. >> chris: so you think you are going to win in the supreme court? >> we are not taking anything for granted. the supreme court justices will decide the case when it get there's but we believe that we are right under the constitution. this judge if you read his 136-page opinion that analyzes every single issue, every single piece of evidence bearing on this case, decided that this discrimination is wrong, it is unconstitutional and it should be stopped. we are hopeful and reasonably confident that the supreme court when we get there will agree with that. >> chris: we have about a minute left. let's talk about ted olson. your conservative credentials are unquestioned. you argued and won bush v. gore which ended up with the -- the election of for president bush.

why did you get involved in this cause and is it in fact the case that hollywood director and liberal rob reiner was the one who got you to take on the case? >> there is a lot of people that asked me to take on the case. chris, we believe that a conservative value is stable relationships and a stable community and loving individuals coming together and forming a basis that is a building block of our society which includes marriage. we believe that that is a conservative value. we also believe that it is an important conservative value to sustain the rights of liberty, of our citizens and to eliminate discrimination on invideous bases. it should be a liberal and a conservative value. it is a fundamental american value, all men and all women are created equal under the law. >> chris: mr. olson, thank you so much for joining us today. we will keep following your lawsuit and after your

appearance today i don't understand how you ever lost a case in the supreme court, sir. >> you're very kind, chris. thank you for having me on your program. >> chris: up next, what do republicans need to pull off a victory in november? we will talk to mitch daniel. one of the gop stars mentioned as a possible presidential

>> chris: now, we continue our summer series of interviews with some of the prime contenders for the 2012 gop presidential nomination. joining us from indianapolis is the governor of indiana, mitch daniel. your state's private sector added 46,000 jobs this year. a growth rate of 2% which is triple the national average. what should washington be doing to boost hiring in the private sector? >> washington should be doing everything it possibly can because vibrant economic growth

of a sustained nature and over and at a rate that we have rarely if ever seen is our only chance of keeping the terrifying deficits that we are now looking at from getting even worse. here in indiana we have done everything we know how and this preceded the recession, to try to build the best sandbox in america, lower the cost of doing business. keep taxes down particularly in this recession. make regulation fair and consistent and try to have the most inviting climate anywhere for jobs and investment. i'm hopeful national policy will take the same direction. >> chris: what about more stimulus? they are are going to pass in the house and senate the president this new bill i think it is $26 billion more state aid, keep teachers hired and also talking about a $30 billion fund, lending for small business, do you support that kind of stimulus? >> really don't. you know, the -- it amounts at this point in time to asking thecy zen citizens of responsie

states like ours to subsidize the places who have been more reckless. it is proveable in not going to help the economy. sort of a trickle down government, pour more dollars down the top of the funnel and maybe a little demand and a few more vivat sector jobs fall out the po bottom. i wish they would head in the direction of encouraging the private sector jobs on which everything else depends. >> chris: indiana ended june with a surplus of $830 million and a string of balanced budgets. what should washington do to get ahold, control of these trillion dollars deficits? >> issue is spending. first and foremost. and we have done those things necessary to control it. this isn't new for us when we came to service five and a half

years ago, chris, our state unlike most was bankrupt and so we have been working on this for quite some time. you would really be amazed at how much government you would never miss. and we have brought down per capita spending substantially here. but i can prove to you because we measure everything that service levels on those things that matter most are better not worse. and one can only hope that facing the genuine emergency, i think really survival level problem that we are facing fiscally nationally that our leaders in washington will consider a change of. >> chris: on the other hand, sir,, let's look at your record as the first budget director for george w. bush back in 2001. 2001. when you came in there was an annual surplus of $236 billion. when you left, just over two years later, the country had an annual deficit of $400 billion.

>> well, fair enough. and recessions do that. i will just tell you that in two and a half years of service i was never in a debate with a member of congress of either party, by the way where they wanted to spend less and i wanted to spend more. it was always the other way around. and congress got their way on too many ohcations. listen, i agree that more money was spent then than needed to be. we would love to be at those deficits now. they are one sixth of the size we are running now and told tex peck for the next few years. >> let's talk about another aspect of fiscal policy that happened when you were in washington and that is the bush tax cuts. now, a big issue whether or not to allow them to be extended for ten years. that would cost $2.9 trillion according to all the budget

counters. how do you pay for that if you want to extend all the bush tax cuts. >> first of all, it is hard for me to understand why you would raise anybody's taxes in the middle of a recession. and secondly, i think it misses the big point. you don't know that that revenue will show up. in fact, this is a good chance it won't. if you slow down growth, these ambitious growth targets which are bake the into the administration's own forecast, if you slow i it down by just % it costs close to $3 trillion right there. our entire focus really, chris in this country has got to be on reviving the private sector, the jobs that count and pay the bills for everything else. we should be looking i will think to perhaps even an emergency program that while not raising taxes opens the door or encourages investment, not this targeted winners and losers approach that we have seen lately but in a macro way

that encourages money that is sitting on the sidelines to come on the playing field and put people back to work. >> chris: and how do you do that? >> well, you could incentivize as we have on some past occasions investment made now. you could offer some sort of moratorium or holiday or opportunity to speed up regulatory permitting which it takes sometimes forever to make job creating investments. i think that the president at least temporarily should have impoundment power or some sort of enhanced power to reduce spending. we have it here in indiana. the only reason we are still in the black when so many other states have gone in the hole or raised taxes. >> chris: let's talk about government spending because there are a lot of critics, conservatives who say one of the reasons that the gop lost its majorities in congress is

they feel that your party lost its way on government spending. talk about your tough ideas, governor. you say we need to fundamentally change entitlement programs. basically form a completely different agreement and arrangement for people below a certain age. explain what you mean? >> well, of course, we do. you know, we are going to have to get people together, chris, in this country to do things that the cynics have said through the centuries democracies eventually would prove unable to do. and this is the best example of think of. you can believe in limited government as i do are expansionive government and still come to the conclusion that there is no way that we can pay for the social security and medicare systems of today. we are practicing child abuse in a literal sense when we deposit those on folks to tomorrow. >> chris: tell me your top idea for how you would change social

security going forward and talking about people not close to the current retirement age? >> my preference would be to means test it. concentrate the resources on the people who need them. why are we sending a retirement check to warren buffett. i would raise the retirement age to something that more matches the modern survival and mortality numbers and but i would say any -- there is a chinese menu of steps we could take. changing the indexation formula is another one that could make social security healthy once again especially for the folks who need it most. and i would be for almost any combination of items off that mean you. medicare is a bigger issue. >> chris: i have to move forward here because we are beginning to run a little bit out of time. you gave an interview with the weekly standard in june that upset a lot of social conservatives. let's take a look at what he says. he daniels says the next president whoever he is would

have to call a truce on the social issues. we have to agree to get along for a little while until the economic issues resolved. a truce on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage? >> chris, my own views and record on these issues are very, very clear. i respect the sig sincerity of those like ted olson that see them differently. i truly believe for the first time in my life our nation is face challenges that threaten the survival of america as we have known it and to do the very difficult thing, things like we were just discussing, reforming medicare and social security and disciplining federal spending, creating the conditions for long-term growth in our country, we are going to have to get together an unusual consensus of people, stop dividing people as these issues do, as this administration likes to do, sadly, and try to

come together in concert to do some very difficult and novel things. and this was really just an expression of the hope that we might at least temporarily, nobody changing their mind, nobody surrendering their principles, put first things first. >> after first ruling out a run, a possible run for president in 2012 you now say that you are open to the idea and i want to ask you a couple of aspects of that. will you start visiting iowa and new hampshire which up to this point you haven't? will you form a political committee to start raising money for a possible run? >> no. i have turned down scads of invitations to just those places and manie many others. i have turned down your show several times but out of respect for you said, yes today finally. i have not decided to do this. many people have asked that i at least keep an open mind and i have said all right.

but, you know, my attention is entirely fixed on the challenges and i think opportunities facing indiana and trying to do the people's business well, here and that is where it is going to remain. if the question is still of interest to people later they can ask me then. >> chris: in the final minute. what would it be, you say you are open to the idea. what conditions would have to prevail for you to decide i'm going to get into it? >> we live in a world of secret agendas and code words but not all of us operate that way. i'm telling you my point of view. i'm hopeful honestly that people in both parties will step forward and recognize the republic threatening dimension and nature of the fiscal disaster that is waiting for us, the threat to our economy ing at grow't begin growin begg

a much faster rate. i'm hoping we will see people step forward and really hit those things head on and maybe i'll be one of them, but there is a lot of ways to contribute to that debate. >> chris: governor daniels thank you so much for coming on today and talking with us. whatever the role is, please come back soon. >> i'd like that. >> chris: up next, the new unemployment numbers look bleak as the recovery seems to be running out of steam. we'll ask our sunday group what it means for the country and

reminds me when mom and dad go away for the weekend and the teenagers say leave us home alone, we're responsible, what can go wrong? except mom and dad come home early to find the house trashed, the police parked outside and everything is a mess. >> chris: that was republican congressman peter roskam making a colorful argument that democrats have let spending get out of control. it is time for our sunday group, bill kristol of the weekly standard. jennifer loven, chief white house correspondent for the associated press. former state department official liz cheney and juan williams from national public radio. tough job numbers for july and let's take a look at some of them. the economy lost 131,000 jobs including 143,000 temporary census workers.

private sector employers added just 71,000 jobs. 14.6 million americans still out of work. bill, how much double is this recovery in and -- how much trouble is this recovery in and is it losing stream? >> clearly is just on the numbers. and one economist said we are probably growing at 1.5% and probably slowing down. small business lost, employers shed jobs, lost jobs in the last month which is bad news since small business mass to be a leading in cater. look at the surveys of consumer and investor confidence is is declining the last couple of months. >> chris: jennifer, you cover the white house every day. goldman, sachs revised its estimate of growth for next year from 2.5% to 1.9%. inside the white house why do they think the recovery is beginning to stall?

>> a couple of things. i think there was an exhaustive report out just in the last couple of weeks looking at recoveries over time and i think when you have a financial crisis the depths of which we have in this country that recoveries after an event like that tend to be slower. allen greenspan not known for brevity said we are having a pause in a modest recovery that feels like a quasirecession. >> sort of the dip, the slowing of the recovery for people around the country who are jobless, millions of them as you pointed out, 8'" million jobs lost since the recession started in late '07 and only 600,000 or so of those gained back this year. it's pretty tough. >> chris: liz, which raises the central question clearly between now and november what to do about this economy. democrats say more stimulus. >> yeah, i mean i think that is really the concern that we have got these numbers that are very

bad. bill mentioned the small business numbers which are down 159,000 inside the job numbers that came out this week. and at the same time the white house seems unwilling, the president seems unwilling to look at all this evidence and change source. instead there is continuing massive new spending programs and the house is coming back into session this week to vote for $26 billion more. and while this is all going on the president is spending his time out there bashing george bush. it occurs that you lack credibility for that sort of criticism. it is hard to criticize george bush for deficit spending while president obama is simultaneously engaged in the most massive spending. >> chris: he is saying that they drove the economy in a ditch which it was at the end of 2008. >> he says he is not going to let republicans have the keys back. each time i hear that president obama doesn't get to decide who

gets the keys to the car, the american people get to decide that and i know we will talk about that in the next panel. it would be nice to see recognition that we are going to cut down on the spending and not let the bush tax cuts expire. >> chris: gop extend all the bush tax cuts and give the businesses sitting on the pile of crash a couple of trillion dollars, some certainty, some confidence about what their cost of doing business is going to be. >> just give the rich more money that will solve all our problems because the rich are the ones who give jobs and therefore we should reward the rich even though the rich were the ones who participated in driving the car into the ditch with their extremes. if you look at what the deal is right now, corporate profits are doing pretty well. wall street is doing just fine but they are not putting the money into jobs and hiring people because they are concerned about what may be a double dip recession because some of the numbers that bill

and liz talked about are on target. people are just, you know, people are struggling to create jobs. but i would say when you say liz, change course, the president refuses to change course. where are there any republican ideas forgetting this economy back on track? all we get from republicans is no, no, no to everything from unemployment benefits to stimulus pending. if americans are looking out there and everybody is concerned about jobs they are saying yeah, we have trouble, why doesn't president obama do more? maybe more as chris wallace suggested in terms of stimulus spending. >> chris: i didn't suggest. i just asked a question. >> we have lost 3.3 million jobs since the stimulus passed last year and what is clear is that the private sector is not going to hire when they are traumaized and they have been traumatized by the policies of the administration. and the republican ideas are

you have to let the private sector grow. >> chris: let bill in. you will get a chance. >> let's get beyond this petty partisan debate here. look, the president has a couple of interesting choices to make the next two months. they are pushing the fed next week at its meetings to print more money and they fact they seem to be toying with the idea, treasury has a big meeting on fannie mae and freddie and they are toying with the idea of for giving some mortgages for those who owe more than the house is worth which would be an attempt at stimulus. it was announced and actually launched the tea parties that was helping those who can't afford the houses they have. that would be very much staying the course. big government stimulus proproals. i don't think the markets will like it but they are toying with that. and then a big tax debate in congress and the president will have to decide is he willing to accept the extension of all the current tax rates or go the public i think will not accept the hike in taxes on the well

to do and on small businesses. i think the president if he did pivot actually, if he said enough of the stimulus and let's at least not raise taxes i think that is the one thing that could help him a little bit politically the next couple of months and i think the markets could welcome. could you imagine if he stood up and said i looked at this fresh data. >> chris: let me bring in jennifer. is there any possibility that the president would say you know what, we are going to keep the tax cuts for the middle class and the wealthy for a couple of years because this recovery is not going the way we thought it would? >> short answer, no. he is not going accept that. they have been very clear about that and at this point to go back on that would cause him so much trouble with his own base and his own party. he has said he wants to extend them for the middle class but extending them for the wealthy, no, not going to happen. >> even if the choice is no extension. i think republicans will block the partial extension. >> i don't think so. >> you think he won't accept it. >> chris: why would republicans

block an extense for the middle class. in saying if we don't get it for the wealthy we will not give a tax cut or continue the tax cut for the middle class? >> and they are in the position of saying elect republicans and we will extend the extension for everybody dunn and we won't put the burden on small business. >> what about the promise of we are concerned about deficits and spending and yet when it comes to giving tax breaks i think it is just to the top 2% and would add trillions to the deficits. >> no, the top 2% would add $700 billion which is still real money. >> over time. okay. it is just terrible. if you look at what the record speaks in terms of that stimulus spendin spending thato divided. even republican economists say it has saved jobs and moved up the gop. the rich want more and more. speaking of rich, in the last 15 minutes, go kristol.

>> if we are concerned about spending we would like to curb spending. >> chris: there you go. we to take a break here is/we we come back, we will take a look at the big picture of how the mid term elections are shaping up including an important vote in missouri this week on healthcare reform. back in a moment.

give us the keys back. well, you can't have the keys back, you don't know how to drive. you got us into the ditch in the first place! >> chris: president obama on the campaign trail this week saying republicans can't get back in the driver's seat and we are back now with our panel. and liz, we ran that clip just to get under your skin. >> thank you, thank you. >> chris: why does it bug you so much. >> it is the combination. a series of events here. the president saying you can't have the keys back like he is the decider. you also have got robert gibbs this week when asked about what does it mean that 71% of the people in missouri said they don't want any mandate for health insurance. he said "it means nothing." when you have a white house that unwilling to listen to what the people are saying i think that it causes some real concern about whether or not

they are actually going to be responsive to the voters. with you i think frankly it gives the voters a much bigger impetus come november to elect folks that will listen to them. >> chris: juan? >> i love george w. bush. he said he was the decider when was president so i guess president obama can be the decider now that he is the president. >> i don't think george w. bush ever said he got to decide who had the keys to the car. >> the missouri vote, 70% inside a and e echo chamber of older white people, not in st. louis, not in kansas city, saying we don't like a requirement that everybody has to have h healthcare even though the hospitals in missouri say it is going to drive up our costs. everyone is going run to the emergency rooms when they have their accidents. >> chris: what happened to respect for democracy. >> tremendous respect for democracy. >> chris: the proposition was on the ballot and 71% voted in favor of the proposition. >> the unions didn't get out there. the consumer.

>> chris: that is their problem. >> right. so because everybody knows as ted olson told you in an earlier seth on the gay rights issue the courts have said that federal law trumps state law in the area or they will decide if it is to be the case. >> chris: that is not immigration. we are talking about healthcare. >> that is right. on this issue can a state say that reel not require our citizens to buy health insurance. that issue is right now being taken up by several attorney generals around the country in separate states and they are going eventually end up in the courts. >> you should know this as our anchor. >> oh. >> it is a real constitutional issue whether or not the federal government has the right to force people to buy insurance. and i think it is stuning that you in the white house are unwilling to heed the votes of the people in missouri. you are going to get mail about that. >> chris: i'm going to get to something else with you, bill. because republicans need 40 seats to win back control of the house and you were saying

to me the other day you think the victory could be a lot bigger than that. >> look at the polling, the generic ballot is now plus six republican if you average the different polls. the national vote. if the republican intensity is greater plus six really means probably plus 8 or 9 given how the national vote gets distributed. if that holds republicans will pick up something like 60 seats. >> chris: execution me? >> if the republicans -- excuse me? >> if the republicans win the national vote, they will pick up something like 60 seats. the house vote does -- the come position of the house of representatives mirrors the national public vote. republicans have 30 seats when they won in 1994, 52 to 45. they were plus 7 in '94 they had 237 seats. if they got to 230 that would be a 55 seat pickup right now. that is the cow they are on. it could change. two things. healthcare.

when healthcare was passed on march 24, ras musten asked do you want it repealed or not, 55-42, yes. the big democratic talking point was it will get better once people know more about it. it has gone to 59-38. they are not making their case on the single biggest bill passed by the democratic congress as they look at vulnerability on the districts. on the economy there was a poll by stanley greenburg that shows in the last month and here is why i think the slowing is bad for the democrats. confidence in the democrats and obama on the economy has begun to collapse. republicans advantage this month opened up a 13 point edge do you trust the republicans more than the democrats. healthcare is unpopular, republicans will have large gains. >> chris: jennifer what is from your reporting what is the current read in the white house about their chances of losing the house and even the senate? >> i think there is -- i think there is some fear that they

could lose the house but i think there is also, look, we are talking about something that is three months off right and we are also talking about an election that i think we can all agree is going to be largely decided on the economy. healthcare, yes, it as galvanizing issue and there are social issues that could bring some people to the polls and get some people enenergiese enn either side of the debate. the economy is it. look at obama's message and the democrat's message and it is a little thin, right. he talks about the gains in the auto industry and talks about criticizing george w. bush and invoking him by name which you don't usually see happen. his main message is it could have been worse if we wouldn't have acted which is a hard sell for people toughing it out in their homes and in their businesses. on the other hand the republicans as juan was pointing out, their message has mostly been to be the barrier, to say no. for a country that really wants

something done even if they are not quite sure what it is or they disagree with some of the things that are happening that is also a tough message. >> chris: liz? >> i think the other place to watch and i would disagree with jennifer on the notion that republicans are just saying no. watch the governor's races this time around. i think you have good places, 35 governors races up now or 37 and the republicans are leading in 25 of them. and one ever reasons those governors races are so important is because they have become incubators and models and so you get people like mitch daniels and chris christy in new jersey, governors doing a good job where president obama's stewardship of the economy is failing by base ucitelly evergy objective oh sure you have in the states the governors who are cutting spending and taking on the unions and putting their state budgets back in the black. and i think that those governors that you have to look for, particularly in some key swing states come this november have a real potential to make gains for republicans that will matternd in reapportionment

and also setting up the leaders of the next generation. >> chris: one other thing with you juan, and we have less than a minute left. were your surprised after what a lot of people considered a pretty explosive court ruling in california allowing same-sex marriage that the response from the republicans was as muted as it was? >> no, i think republicans understand that is an issue that could alienate swing voters beg time. and gay rights is becoming more accepted now, across all political lines in the country. it could do damage to the republican brain. i think republicans right now to get back to the economy and its impact on politics are not really -- everybody likes mitch daniel and chris christy, they are great governors but do they really represent republicans at this time? i think people are worried it might be sharon angle in nevada or rand paul that those are the type of people putting out crazy ideas about the economy. >> these guys are in office. >> and the democrats are putting money into get out the

voters. >> chris: this is what panel plus was invented for. thank you panel. check out the latest edition of panel plus where we will pick up on the discussion on our website foxnewssunday.com. we will post the video before noon eastern time. up next, a brand new power player of the week.

>> chris: there are plenty of places in washington where you can sit down to a big power lunch at a big price but there is one businessman here who

tries to do exactly the opposite. he is our power player of the week. >> it's kind of intuitive and everyone thought i was crazy for doing it but everyone thinks i am crazy anyway. >> he is talking about the newest restaurants that is on pd it's an upscale place calls ray's. >> why come in one of most depressed areas of washington? >> particularly of the fact that it is underserved. >> you make it sounds like social work? >> any restaurant should be a combination of the two. >> chris: that is his philosophy. people question whether local residents could afford eating there. he expanded menu from trademark steak to other things. he has brought new life to the community? >> every job you break, it's

saving an entire household. >> how many jobs will it create? >> we have created 40 jobs and growing. >> chances are you heard of landrum's food. >> president obama took vice president took him there last year. he liked it so much he got aburg they are june. >> very tasty. >> having the president of the united states visit your restaurant when it's just a hole in the wall because of how great the food is but no-no bigger complement can be paid. >> he first opened in a strip mall in 2002. it became famous for great steaks and low prices. he served top quality beef for half the price of a fancy

steakhouse downtown. he wants to serve real people with budgets and baby-sitters. >> most people in my in the business. you are excluding people from enjoying what you do. it really isn't hospitality. >> chris: are you against making money? >> no, we do quite well in a small way but money, the bottom line has never been that. >> chris: in fact he has been known thrown people out of their restaurant if they insult his staff. which brings to us what is his bottom line, on full display. >> how much of a gamble is it opening this kind of restaurant in this neighborhood? >> financially it's a big risk. >> he was prepared to lose money thousands of dollars a month indefinitely. whichever it makes it sweeter it's already turning a small profit. >> the excitement what i am

doing can be seen just by looking around you. in the most positive way possible. >> chris: you can hear more of our power players unusual views on our website at foxnews.com and in case you wonder why michael would kua call his place ray, that is his nickname, in you are a little ray of sunshine. we'll see you next fox news sunday. scott. thanks for watching.